New Delhi: In a significant pronouncement that is expected to reshape legislative relations between State governments and Governors, the Supreme Court of India today delivered its opinion on a Presidential Reference concerning the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, which govern the assent to State Bills.
A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar, categorically ruled that the Governor does not possess the power to simply 'withhold assent' indefinitely (the "withholding simpliciter"). However, the Court simultaneously held that judicial bodies cannot impose strict, fixed timelines on either the Governor or the President to complete their constitutional duties.
This opinion, which resolved 11 out of 14 questions raised by President Droupadi Murmu, arose after a previous two-judge bench ruling in April 2025 (The State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr.) attempted to prescribe specific time limits for the Governor's action on Bills—a measure the Constitution Bench found to be erroneous.
The 111-page opinion tendered by the Apex Court provides definitive clarity on the scope of gubernatorial discretion, the binding nature of ministerial advice, and the limited scope of judicial review.
Questions Answered by the Constitution Bench
1. What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
The Bench opined that the Governor does not have the power to simply withhold a bill indefinitely. The Governor is limited to three specific constitutional options:
To assent to the Bill, making it law immediately.
To reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
To withhold assent and return the Bill to the legislature, accompanied by a message requesting the House to reconsider the Bill or specific provisions, and suggest amendments.
What happens after the Legislature reconsiders the Bill?
The Court clarified that even if the legislature passes the reconsidered bill (with or without amendments), the Governor cannot withhold assent at this stage. However, the Governor retains the option to reserve the Bill for the President's consideration. The power to reserve the Bill for the President is irrespective of whether the Bill is returned by the Legislature in its amended or unamended form.
2. Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
The Constitution Bench noted that the Governor "ordinarily" exercises functions based on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. However, the Court confirmed that the Governor enjoys discretion in certain functions as provided by the Constitution.
In the context of Article 200, the Court pointed to the phrase "in the opinion of the Governor" (in the second proviso) as a definitive expression of this discretionary power.
The Governor exercises discretion specifically when:
Referring a Bill for the President's consideration.
Returning the Bill to the Legislature with his comments.
The Court emphasized that this interpretation does not grant unfettered powers to the Governor and remains consistent with the concept of a responsible constitutional government.
3. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
The Court answered that the constitutional choice made by the Governor is not justiciable. This means the courts cannot conduct a merit review of the Governor's decision—they cannot look into the wisdom or appropriateness of the decision itself.
4. Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
While holding that the merits of the Governor's decision are non-justiciable, the Court clarified that Article 361 (which grants personal immunity to the Governor) is not an absolute bar to judicial review.
The courts can take cognizance of prolonged and evasive constitutional inaction. For this limited purpose, a court can issue a direction asking the Governor to exercise one of the constitutional options within a reasonable period of time. The Court observed: "The constitutional office of the Governor is definitely subject to the jurisdiction of the court, to prevent prolonged and evasive constitutional inaction."
5. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?
The Constitution Bench ruled that the imposition of fixed timelines on the Governor under Article 200, as was done in the Tamil Nadu case, was "erroneous."
The Court reasoned that the text of Articles 200 and 201 is framed to provide a "sense of elasticity" to constitutional authorities, necessary for balancing lawmaking in a diverse federal country. As a natural consequence of this, the Court held that there can be no concept of 'deemed consent' in the absence of prescribed timelines under Articles 200 and 201.
6. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
The Court opined that the President’s assent under Article 201, like the Governor’s decision, is not justiciable.
7. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?
The Bench held that the President, like the Governor, cannot be bound by judicially prescribed timelines when discharging functions under Article 201. The Court also clarified that any observations on timelines for the President made in the Tamil Nadu case were merely obiter dictum (remarks not essential to the decision).
8. In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent or otherwise?
The Court confirmed that the President is not required to seek the Supreme Court's advice via a reference under Article 143 every time a Bill is reserved. The President's subjective satisfaction is deemed sufficient under Article 201. However, the Court affirmed that the President can always make a reference under Article 143 if there is a requirement for the Court's advice.
9. Can the power of the Governor under Article 200, including the option to return or reserve a Bill, be exercised on the grounds of political expediency or by failing to apply mind to the Bill presented?
The Court implicitly addressed this by reaffirming that while the constitutional choice is non-justiciable (Q3), the Governor's action must still align with the constitutional role. It stressed that the Governor cannot simply withhold or ignore a Bill, thereby ruling out action based purely on political expediency or non-application of mind that results in constitutional inaction (Q4). The Governor must exercise a positive choice (Assent, Reserve, or Return).
10. Can the Supreme Court, through its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, enforce a time limit or declare a Bill to have been assented to, if the Governor or President fails to act?
The Court ruled that while Article 142 can be used to achieve "complete justice," it cannot be employed to create a provision (like 'deemed assent' or a fixed deadline) that is absent from the express text of Articles 200 and 201. However, the scope of Article 142 allows the Court to issue a direction to the Governor or the President to compel them to exercise one of their constitutional choices (Assent, Reserve, or Return) to end the inaction, thereby aligning with the principles laid down in Q4.
11. Does the failure of the Governor to exercise any option under Article 200 within a reasonable period result in the Bill being deemed to have received assent?
A direct and clear answer was given: No. The Court reiterated that the concept of 'deemed consent' or a law coming into force without active assent is foreign to the scheme of Article 200. The Governor's legislative role cannot be substituted or bypassed by any other authority, including the judiciary. A Bill requires a positive constitutional act—Assent, Return, or Reservation—to conclude the process.
12. In view of the proviso to Article 145(3)... is it not mandatory for any bench of the Supreme Court to first decide as to whether the question involved... is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five Judges?
The Court declined to answer this query, stating it was irrelevant to the "functional nature of the reference." It also noted that the determination of whether a dispute raises a question of constitutional importance is within the province of judicial inquiry, and the Chief Justice of India retains the power to determine the strength of a Bench.
13. Do the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142... extend to issuing directions /passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?
The Court stated that this question was worded in such broad terms that a comprehensive and definitive answer was not possible. However, it noted that the scope of Article 142 in the specific context of the Governor's and President's functions was already covered in the answer to Question 10.
14. Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union Government and the State Governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?
The Court also declined to answer this, terming it irrelevant to the functional nature of the reference.
Summary Impact
The Supreme Court's opinion maintains the Governor's position as a critical constitutional check on the legislative process by preserving the right to reserve Bills for the President and ensuring that this choice is discretionary and non-justiciable. However, by clearly eliminating the option of indefinite delay ("withholding simpliciter") and the idea of 'deemed assent,' the ruling ensures constitutional accountability and prevents the political frustration of State legislative enactments. Governors are now constitutionally compelled to act one way or another, protecting the spirit of responsible federal governance.
(Disclaimer: This article summarizes the core findings of the Supreme Court's opinion and is intended for informational purposes. Readers should refer to the full text of the judgment for legal interpretation.)
JUDGEMENT LINK :- https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/39157/39157_2025_1_1501_66169_Judgement_20-Nov-2025.pdf